The jury is either out or in

[hrj]

At some point in my life, I would like to actually serve on a jury. And yet, every single time I get a summons, I end up thinking, "Oh man, I hope they don't need me because it would be so inconvenient at this particular time." Since my wishing has no effect on the process, I won't bother feeling guilty for it. I get summoned for duty fairly regularly -- not quite every year, but certainly every two years on average. Perhaps half a dozen times in my life I've actually had to go sit in the jury waiting room, on-call. I think three times total I've been sent to a courtroom. Only once have I gotten far enough in the empaneling process to be chosen, and then the defense attorney decided to plea-bargain. (A good idea, in my opinion. It was a DUI case with a positive blood alcohol test. It was clear from the initial questioning that the defense was going to attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of blood alcohol testing in general.)

The time I came second-closest to being chosen led me to do a lot of soul-searching about what is officially asked of jurors in terms of mental process. "Can you judge based solely on the evidence presented in court without bringing in any outside knowledge, experience, or research?" What does that even mean? If I refused to apply any existing knowledge to the deliberations, I'd have to require the attorneys to define every single word they used from scratch. I'd have to require them to explain the systems, mechanics, and causal relationships of every single concept they introduced. Don't be absurd, you say, that's not at all what they mean. But where is the clear and bright dividing line between being allowed to bring an understanding that if a person points a gun and pulls a trigger and a bullet subsequently goes through a body causing fatal damage, and not being allowed to bring an understanding that the statistical correlation of specific environmental carcinogens and certain morbidities is not the same as a specific and direct causal chain for a particular individual's diagnosis? (If I'd paid more attention to late night tv, that particular empanelment process would have been more cut-and-dried, because if I'd gotten to the point where they asked me whether I was familiar with the plaintiff's law firm, I could have said, "Oh, you mean the ambulance chaser who advertises that he'll get big settlements for mesothelioma?")

I got a jury summons over a month ago, scheduled for today, at a time when there was no reason to believe it would be at all inconvenient. When I scheduled an out of town vacation for the last week of May, it seemed unlikely to be a problem. Even if I were chosen, it would either be a quick case and over by then, or a complicated one and they'd probably have a break between empanelment and the start of the trial. And then, two weeks ago, I got put on an intensive and critical project at work, for which I was one of the two lead report writers. (It's going to be tight enough to be done with my part before I go on vacation.) And yet, if I'd been empaneled, it would have ben ok. Someone else could have done the job.

The system strung me along to the max: not called up for this morning, but I still had to call in at lunch. And then I was off the hook and the project lead gave a sigh of relief. It simplifies my immediate life, and yet…at some point in my life, I do want to serve at least once.

Comments

[lferion]

I ended up on a jury a while back (and they ended up making me fore-person, which was interesting and aggravating in its own right). I found myself vividly recalling high school debate-practice, as well as formal logic and the nature of oath-taking.

That dividing line really isn't as clear as people seem to think it is.

[desperance.livejournal.com]

I'm still intrigued how often Americans get called (to turn up, at least) for jury duty, against how seldom it seems to happen in the UK. I have hardly known anyone through all the years of my adulthood who's actually been called. One or two, almost literally. And it never ever came close to happening to me.

[helblonde.livejournal.com]

Part of the reason we're called so often is that the clerk's office is estimating the potential number of jurors for the week based on the total number of cases ready for trial, plus a huge buffer in cases where the likelihood is that they'll neex to nix a bunch of potential jurors.

Also, I don't know whether it's the case in England, but we use juries on some civil trials, not just crminal ones.

It's never a convenient time

[helblonde.livejournal.com]

I've served on two juries, one civil and one criminal (as foreman). It was both terribly tedious and quite satisfying.

The attorneys present their witnesses and experts (nothing an attorney says is considered evidence; they have to get someone else to say it). They jury gets to decide how much weight to give each witness.

The judge gives pretty good instructions about the standards which the jury is to apply to the trial. When empaneled, a jury is given a worksheet to go through the questions relevant to the trial.
"Is this person the owner of ______?"
"Has this person been shown to be responsible for _____?"
Etc.

I've been impressed by how accurate judges are at determining how long they expect the trial to last (save deliberations, of course). Also, at least in Alameda County, the judges seem to like doing a half day of testimony each day and then allowing jurors to go to work. This is also nice because paying attention through eight hours of testimony on the efficacy of a particular breathalizer test can be challenging.

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

The last time I was even given a jury notice was the year Brocc and Evony got married, and I made it as far as being brought up to the jury box to be questioned. Where the judge asked me who I knew in law enforcement and the legal profession, and I mentioned Brocc. Who the judge knew, and asked if I knew about the wedding, and I'd said I'd been a guest. And then Brocc himself wandered into the courtroom to talk to the bailiff. And I was thanked and dismissed by the prosecution. And apparently never asked back.

[mg4h.livejournal.com]

I was on a civil jury last year, it was over an insurance claim for a fire. The insurance company was attempting to prove that the contractors were at fault for the ignition of the fire, the three (!!) contractors were busy trying to explain what happened, point fingers at the painter that was there that day (that no one interviewed nor deposed for the trial (!!!!!)) and there were two different fire marshals called in to testify.

It lasted four days, I think? There was a lot of eyerolling by us on the jury when one side or the other tried some particular grandstanding tactic, especially when it was a repeat, and we just took notes and shook our heads. It was fascinating but man, jury shows are more laughable now because some of the craziest things DO happen, but other things just don't at all.

They bought us lunch when we were deliberating. We didn't finish eating before we'd persuaded the one unsure person to make it unanimous (civil requires 10 of 12 to agree only). The poor bailiff had sent all the lawyers home, including one that was at the other end of downtown, so we had to wait another half-hour for her to come back.

In the end there was not the right kind of, nor enough, evidence to find for the insurance company, so they weren't going to get the premium paid out back from the contractors. We on the jury all have a new appreciation for how crazy contractors doing work can be, and I am never ever having anyone do major work that I can't be home for, inspect, and ask questions about.

And I may never have recessed lighting and cellulose insulation in a house I live in, because... *shudder* The pictures. Oy.

As for what we brought to the table, everyone I talked to had some random bit of knowledge or experience that influenced how we examined the evidence as presented. For my part it was very hard to not go and look up what the weather was that day, because the sides were arguing whether or not the painter needed to turn on the lights to see or if it was sunny or not. I *know* this sort of historical data is kept, I *know* I could have looked it up, but I waited till after the trial was done to confirm which side was right.

And it really didn't matter whether or not the dislodged recessed light was on or off, because it wasn't where we saw the burn marks. Which really was what killed the insurance argument - if the fire started at X location but the burn marks were five feet away at Y position, more than a joist over? Didn't hold water. Now, five feet up the same joist, then they could have argued but, nope.

[hvideo.livejournal.com]

The only jury I ever served on was a drunk-driving issue - and yes, the defense was pulling out all the stops to try to discredit the evidence.

The driver was seen driving erratically - if I recall correctly, this was blamed on being distracted by a cell phone on the passenger seat that he was trying to find/answer (this was before talking on cell phones while driving was made illegal in this state).

He was pulled over and given a field sobriety test along the side of the highway, which he failed. The defense blamed this on the fact that there was construction going on in that section and so the shoulder was uneven, with little bits of debris along it.

If memory serves, there was a problem with the Breathalyzer in the squad car not working. So he was taken in to the station and given a blood test - but this took place after a significant period of time (maybe an hour). The defense argued that he had polished off his drinks in the restaurant just before getting into his car and had headed straight home and that the alcohol hadn't had time to get into his bloodstream at the point he was pulled over - so he wasn't driving drunk at that time. It was only because it took the hour (or whatever) at the police station for the blood test to be taken that gave the alcohol enough time to get into his system.

There was a solid majority that wanted to convict - but there were 2 holdouts. One apparently thought that if there was 1 chance in a million that he wasn't guilty, that that was enough for "Reasonable Doubt". He apparently equated that statement with "beyond ANY doubt." The other, from his statements and questions in the jury room, gave the distinct impression that he either was himself a heavy drinker or had family and/or friends who were heavy drinkers. He gave the very distinct impression that he wouldn't convict anyone on a drunk driving charge under any circumstances, no matter what the evidence was. So it wound up a hung jury.

A learning experience for sure.